The right to resell strikes me as a right of ownership so by ruling against same it makes our downloaded music files rentals. Or leases. As such, I have to wonder aloud, again, why we're charged ownership rates for something we do not have ownership rights to.
The essence of this case against ReDigi lies in the notion that you cannot sell a digital file without first making a copy of it. So while making a copy of a recording for ones own use is something the record labels let slide, reselling a copy of a digital file is something they will not allow. And the courts have ruled in their favor.
This understanding is, of course, confirmed by the laws of physics. It is simply impossible that the same ?material object? can be transferred over the Internet. Thus, logically, the court in London - Sire noted that the Internet transfer of a file results in a material object being ? created elsewhere at its finish .? Id . at 173. Because the reproduction right is necessarily implicated when a copyrighted work is embodied in a new material object, and because digital music files must be embodied in a new material object following their transfer over the Internet, the Court determines that the embodiment of a digital music file on a new hard disk is a reproduction within the meaning of the Copyright Act.
I have to wonder if we download all of our music directly to an external hard drive, can we then sell the entire drive since we are not in fact selling a copy? Of course I'm never going to find out since I don't want to sell my music but for CD-quality material it is as if the record companies are providing the incentive for us to buy the CD over the download since there's nothing stopping someone from buying a CD or used CD, ripping it, and reselling it. Well, there's always conscience.
Source: http://www.audiostream.com/content/judge-rules-against-redigi-you-cannot-resell-digital-file
No comments:
Post a Comment